Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: One year in a post-Roe v. Wade Illinois
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Since it’s the one-year Dobbs anniversary, let’s look back at how one “hot button” issue evolved. From the Chicago Tribune on May 26, 2001…
The Illinois House Friday narrowly defeated a measure that would have required notification of parents before their teenage daughters obtained abortions, marking a rare setback for abortion foes who have passed virtually every major legislative initiative they have pushed for more than two decades.
Both abortion opponents and abortion rights supporters agreed that the vote could portend a philosophical shift in the chamber.
“I think the House of Representatives has gotten a lot more moderate and I think that vote shows it,” said Rep. Terry Parke (R-Hoffman Estates), a longtime abortion foe who said his bill would have stopped Illinois from serving as a “dumping ground for abortions” for young women from other Midwestern states with notification laws.
Parental notification “is the least intrusive on the issue of abortion that we can put out there,” he said. “If we can’t pass that, it means that until there’s a change … I don’t know how we can pass anything that affects the issue of abortion unless we get others to change their position.”
The bill is here.
* Parental notification is supposed to be a hot-button political issue, and was considered even more so 22 years ago. But a total of 14 House Republicans voted with the pro-choice side on that bill: Reps. Beaubien, Coulson, Cross, Hassert, Hoeft, Klingler, Krause, Lindner, Mathias, Moore, Mulligan, O’Connor, Osmond and Persico. Nine of those folks served in the House when the chamber was majority Republican. The chamber had a 60-58 Dem-GOP party split at the time of the PNA vote.
Today, there is not a single pro-choice Republican in either legislative chamber and hardly any Republicans holding districts in the suburban and exurban areas that were represented by those pro-choice Republicans back in the day. The current party split is 78-40.
Yes, the district maps are far worse for the GOP now than they were then. But at least some of those 14 HGOPs might not have been around in 2001 had they been strongly opposed to abortion rights.
* By contrast, 19 House Democrats voted for that 2001 parental notification bill, including the House Speaker: Brosnahan, Brunsvold, Bugielski, Capparelli, Forby, Fowler, Franks, Hannig, Hartke, Hoffman, Holbrook, Shirley Jones, Joe Lyons, Mautino, McCarthy, McGuire, Novak, Reitz and Speaker Madigan.
And six House Democrats voted Present, including a current Illinois Supreme Court justice who is now pro-choice: Crotty, Curry, Steve Davis, Giles, Mary K. O’Brien and Ryan.
So, that’s 25 of 60, or 42 percent. Most, not all, of those districts are now represented by either pro-choice Democrats or by Republicans.
* At the time of that 2001 vote, the courts had blocked a parental notification bill passed during the brief era of Republican legislative control. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the law in 2013.
When a repeal of the parental notification law was put up on the Big Board in 2021, all Republicans and just 6 House Democrats voted against repeal: Davis, DeLuca, Scherer, Walsh, Yednock and Zalewski. Another three voted Present: Burke, Crespo and Hurley. Two didn’t vote: Moylan and Tarver.
That works out to 11 of 73, or 15 percent. Rep. Jay Hoffman, who voted for parental notification in 2001, voted to repeal the law in 2021. House Speaker Chris Welch voted to repeal as well.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 11:13 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: One year in a post-Roe v. Wade Illinois
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’ve always been confused by this strictly from a logical standpoint, because I could care less about most abortion topics. But when underage, you cannot do anything medically on your own but this should be ok? Seems counterintuitive.
Comment by Lurker Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 11:34 am
In downstate races of that era, the Dems who voted for the parental notification bill were castigated by Repub opponents as not being pro-life enough. The Repubs said the Dems were still in a party with a pro-choice platform, so their pro-life vote wasn’t good enough. And the voters bought the smear, thus creating two polarized political parties on the issue.
You’d think Republican leaders would ask “How’s that worked out for us?” but I don’t sense that’s happening.
Comment by someonehastosayit Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 11:44 am
@Lurker: you don’t have to understand it. Watch the sausage get made. Voters are sometimes inconsistent.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 11:50 am
Birthday boy Terry C once told me that one pro-choice Mulligan or Krause was worth five pro-choice Democrats, because of their influence within the caucus.
Pro-choice suburban Republicans were a pleasure to share the House with, on many issues.
Hard-line pro-lifers are limiting the opportunities for Republican success in our state.
Comment by walker Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 11:50 am
Point of clarification: in 2001, the House Dem/GOP split was 62-56 (Franks + Garrett in 1998).
Comment by Point Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 12:11 pm
My dad served in the House back in the 70s and 80s. He always remarked at how many of the Ds were “pro-life” back then. Kind of remarkable how things have changed.
Comment by anonymous for this post Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 12:21 pm
===one pro-choice Mulligan or Krause was worth five pro-choice Democrats===
Ball game.
Now?
Republicans are dangerous to women’s health.
Mulligans, Beaubiens, Krauses, moderates in the GOP don’t exist because the irony of freedom is not what a cult “dedicated” to freedom welcomes.
I remember too when Republicans were feted and celebrated for championing social services… then “Rauner”
Abortion will eventually sink the moderates so far down in the GOP they will drown from the lack of “freedom oxygen”
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 1:20 pm
Lurker,
I think one reason why there is a different attitude toward this is because of how awful US policies make parenthood. And that is what becomes of most young women who get pregnant and can’t get an abortion. They become parents. Some, like one of my nieces, give the baby up for adoption but not most due to bonding and social expectations that makes that choice difficult.
If US policies rewarded parenthood, then perhaps so many teens would not want an abortion but when post-highschool education or apprenticeship opportunties are at risk by being a parent (not much parent housing for college students, having to make expensive childcare arrangements for military deployment, even sick days needed by parents for an apprenticeship in the trades), especially a poor parent which most teen mothers would be, then abortion is seen as a future-saver for young women.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 2:31 pm
If a girl has a healthy relationship with their parent(s), they will talk with them.
The repeal allows for those girls who do not and for those who, heaven forbid, were impregnated by their father or step father. Those girls need the safety net of no parental notification to be there for them.
Comment by Proud Sucker Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 4:06 pm
Great analysis Rich. And now I have all those roll calls in one convenient place. Thank you!
Comment by Cosgrove Friday, Jun 23, 23 @ 9:04 pm